Intel® Fortran Compiler
Build applications that can scale for the future with optimized code designed for Intel® Xeon® and compatible processors.
Announcements
Welcome to the Intel Community. If you get an answer you like, please mark it as an Accepted Solution to help others. Thank you!
26758 Discussions

Forum "contributions" list contains bogus dates for "Updated"

mecej4
Black Belt
209 Views
0 Kudos
9 Replies
mecej4
Black Belt
209 Views

Kevin,

While searching for previous posts by another forum member, and attempting to sort the posts by date before selecting, I noticed that the last column (date of last update) showed bogus dates most of the time. Here is a selection of your posts in the screenshot. The first entry, for example, was last updated in 2009 but shows "2 months 1 week ago".

[Somehow, I managed to post the screenshot without the text, so I am placing the text in this "response"]

 

JohnNichols
Valued Contributor II
209 Views

Interesting, even the months and days are wrong if you assume you pulled this on the 12th. 

Or it an April Fools Day joke gone wrong.

mecej4
Black Belt
209 Views

John Nichols wrote:

Interesting, even the months and days are wrong if you assume you pulled this on the 12th. 

No, I posted it today, 14 December 2016. Whether this date is displayed as 12/14/2016 or 14/12/2016 or something else probably depends on your individual profile settings (country of location, time zone, etc.).

Kevin_D_Intel
Employee
209 Views

I had noticed this in the past too but never dug deeper until now. From what I found, the Updated dates are not bogus. Unfortunately this Updated field does not only reflect actual user reply activity. Many of my old posts from the 2008 timeframe you noted were touched "behind the scene". From what I can see they were modified to close them from further comment which I believe is based on age/inactivity, and that action triggered the update to the Updated field.

I can recommend to our Forum Developers that the Update date only reflect the date of the last user reply or date that an existing reply was last updated.

Any Thoughts?

JohnNichols
Valued Contributor II
209 Views

You ask a deeply philosophical question - would the last person out the door or the Universe turn off the lights? And would we record that event?

It is truly worthy of an Asimov book. 

For historical accuracy I would agree with the philosophical point raised by mecej4, humans like math to make sense.  And if Intel cannot do an obvious mathematical equation - who can? 

Does that answer the question?

John

mecej4
Black Belt
209 Views

Davis, Kevin D wrote:

I can recommend to our Forum Developers that the Update date only reflect the date of the last user reply or date that an existing reply was last updated.

Any Thoughts?

From a users' point of view, I should think that any information that is displayed ought to be meaningful or useful. Any "back-office information" such as the "last-touch" dates that you mentioned would be seemingly meaningful and thus lead to confusion or disappointment. Such information should probably be visible only to moderators and administrators. 

With DPD numbers and post reference numbers, users are aware that they should not attempt to decode such numbers. Nor does it make sense to allow forum readers to sort messages by such "unordered numbers".

Typically, I find myself remembering an earlier thread in which the current topic was discussed, and wish to obtain and provide a reference to the earlier thread in a response to a current post. This I do so often that I should appreciate Intel's making the task easier for external users such as myself.

JohnNichols
Valued Contributor II
209 Views

mecej4 wrote:

Quote:

Davis, Kevin D wrote:

 

I can recommend to our Forum Developers that the Update date only reflect the date of the last user reply or date that an existing reply was last updated.

Any Thoughts?

 

 

From a users' point of view, I should think that any information that is displayed ought to be meaningful or useful. Any "back-office information" such as the "last-touch" dates that you mentioned would be seemingly meaningful and thus lead to confusion or disappointment. Such information should probably be visible only to moderators and administrators. 

With DPD numbers and post reference numbers, users are aware that they should not attempt to decode such numbers. Nor does it make sense to allow forum readers to sort messages by such "unordered numbers".

Typically, I find myself remembering an earlier thread in which the current topic was discussed, and wish to obtain and provide a reference to the earlier thread in a response to a current post. This I do so often that I should appreciate Intel's making the task easier for external users such as myself.

Dear Kevin:

I think you have an answer that comes from two long term users. Said in different ways but philosophically the same result and meaning. 

have a Merry Christmas.

John

Kevin_D_Intel
Employee
209 Views

Yes, and I thank you for the feedback. I submitted this as a defect with our Forum Developers. I'll keep this thread updated as I hear updates.

Kevin_D_Intel
Employee
209 Views

The IDZ team fixed the issue with the internal updates altering the date/time under the Recognitions and Contributions "Updated" field. The date/time information now correctly reflects that of the last comment. The "Updated" column was also renamed to "Last comment time".

Reply